Montalet Vs. Murray

Montalet vs Murray

Type Court Judgment Court US Supreme Court Decided 1807

~2 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/78396

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/78396
Court: US Supreme Court
Decided On: 1807
Case Number: 8 U.S. 46
Subject: Education

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Education

Key legal issue: Education

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Montalet

Respondent

Murray

Excerpt

.....of a subsequent holder if the original parties to the note could not sue or be sued in those courts. the courts of the united states have not jurisdiction in a case where both parties are aliens. in cases of reversal, costs do not go of course, but in cases of affirmance they do. when a judgment is reversed for want of jurisdiction, it must be without costs. in the circuit court, murray, a citizen of new york, instituted a suit against montalet, an alien and citizen of the french republic, upon certain promissory notes drawn by the defendant in st. domingo, in favor of cardeaux de la caye. the declaration contained no allegation of the residence, citizenship, or neutral character of the drawee of the notes. in the plea it was stated that he was an alien and subject of france. an objection to the jurisdiction was taken, the record not showing that a suit upon the notes could be prosecuted in the circuit court of georgia. it was suggested by the counsel for the defendant that it did not sufficiently appear that the original parties to the notes were aliens. but mr. chief justice marshall said that if it did not appear upon the record that the character of the original parties would support the jurisdiction, that objection was equally fatal under the uniform decisions of this court. as to costs, the court directed that in cases of reversal, costs do not go of course, but in all cases of affirmance they do, and that when a judgment is reversed for want of jurisdiction, it must be without costs.

Full Judgment

Montalet v. Murray - 8 U.S. 46 (1807)
U.S. Supreme Court Montalet v. Murray, 8 U.S. 4 Cranch 46 46 (1807)

Montalet v. Murray

8 U.S. (4 Cranch) 46

ERROR TO THE CIRCUIT COURT

OF THE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA

SYLLABUS

If it does not appear upon the record that the character of the original parties will support the jurisdiction of the court, it cannot be sustained.

A suit on a promissory note cannot be maintained in the courts of the United States in the hands of a subsequent holder if the original parties to the note could not sue or be sued in those courts.

The courts of the United States have not jurisdiction in a case where both parties are aliens.

In cases of reversal, costs do not go of course, but in cases of affirmance they do. When a judgment is reversed for want of jurisdiction, it must be without costs.

In the circuit court, Murray, a citizen of New York, instituted a suit against Montalet, an alien and citizen of the French Republic, upon certain promissory notes drawn by the defendant in St. Domingo, in favor of Cardeaux de la Caye.

The declaration contained no allegation of the residence, citizenship, or neutral character of the drawee of the notes. In the plea it was stated that he was an alien and subject of France. An objection to the jurisdiction was taken, the record not showing that a suit upon the notes could be prosecuted in the Circuit Court of Georgia.

It was suggested by the counsel for the defendant that it did not sufficiently appear that the original parties to the notes were aliens.

But MR. CHIEF JUSTICE MARSHALL said that if it did not appear upon the record that the character of the original parties would support the jurisdiction, that objection was equally fatal under the uniform decisions of this Court.

As to costs, the Court directed that in cases of reversal, costs do not go of course, but in all cases of affirmance they do, and that when a judgment is reversed for want of jurisdiction, it must be without costs.

Same Parties Montalet vs Murray Same Subject Education

Education promissory note chief justice circuit court supreme court